National Fair Housing Advocate Online - 1992https://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992
1992 issues of The Advocate
enHUD ALJ Streb Orders $10,000 Paid in Two Cases on Denial of Rentals Above Ground Floorhttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/hud-alj-streb-orders-10000-paid-two-cases-denial-rentals-above-ground
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>HUD Administrative Law Judge Paul G. Streb has issued two consent orders in two family status cases, both for $5,000. The cases from Mann County, California and Renton, in Washington State, were settled in July. Both cases involved landlord policies against renting apartments above the ground floor to families with children.</p> <p><strong>Marin Landlord Pays for Tests</strong></p> <p>The Marin County settlement includes an agreement for the respondent to pay the Marin Fair Housing Program for three paired on-site tests each year for three years. The fair housing center will pick the dates for the tests and report the results to the landlord who will pay $350 for each test.</p> <p>After a full day of hearing in February, Judge Streb invited the parties to attempt settlement. After long negotiations these and other terms were worked out between the parties without an ALJ determination.</p> <p>A single mother with a minor child called about an advertised unit at Rowland Apartments owned by William Sommers. When she was unable to apply, she filed a complaint with the Marin Fair Housing Program. They received her complaint, conducted a telephone test, and counseled her.</p> <p>The HUD Secretary charged that the apartment manager, M. J. Hobro, told the initial complainant and the tester "that Rowland Apartments has a policy against renting to families with children above the ground floor," and denied both callers the opportunity to apply.</p> <p>The HUD ALJ ruled that the Marin Fair Housing Program is an "aggrieved person" under the Fair Housing Act which includes, "corporations, associations, and unincorporated organizations."</p> <p>The landlord agreed to pay $2,000 to the Fair Housing Program (which will pay $500 to the initial complainant), $1,600 to the Marin Housing Center; and $1,400 to a charity that assists families with children.</p> <p>The agreement included the standard disclaimer that the landlord admitted no violation, and that his managers would attend training sessions on fair housing law conducted by the Fair Housing Program. Nancy Kenyon, Director of the Marin Fair Housing Program, negotiated the agreement for the complainant.</p> <p><i>[HUD ex rel Marin Fair Housing Program v. Sommers, 09-91-1200-1]<br />Filed with HUD 12-13-90<br />HUD Charge Issued 11-5-91 <br />ALJ Hearing 2-19-92<br />Order 7-13-92</i></p> <p><strong>Chalet Policy Keeps Kids Off Second and Third Floors</strong></p> <p>In the Renton, Washington case the complainants already lived in a one-bedroom unit on the first floor of the Chalet Apartments. They applied to move to a two-bedroom unit on the third floor where the apartments had balconies with wooden slat railings.</p> <p>Complainants Ronald and Maureen Clark were living in the Chalet Apartments when they had a child. The resident manager told the Clarks that the landlord had an unwritten policy against renting apartments on the second and third floor to families with small children because of the owner's concern for the safety of the children. The complaint and the Secretary's charge both alleged this policy constituted discrimination because of family status.</p> <p>The parties agreed to settle the, case for $5,000 paid to the Clarks.</p> <p><i>[HUD as rel. Clark v. Davis, 10-94-0023-1]<br />Filed with HUD 10-10-89<br />HUD Charge Issued 2-14-92<br />Order 7-14-92</i></p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18514 at https://fairhousing.comTwo Handicapped Cases, Two Family Cases Settled by HUD ALJ Cregar for $23,500https://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/two-handicapped-cases-two-family-cases-settled-hud-alj-cregar-23500
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Two handicapped discrimination cases and two family discrimination cases were settled by HUD Administrative Law Judge William C. Cregar for a total of $23,500. The consent orders in the handicapped cases were from Brooklyn, N. Y. and Springfield, Ohio. One family discrimination case involved a mobile home park in San Jose. The other case, from Carol Stream, Illinois, involved HUD's Handbook which provided that "children shall not share a bedroom with a parent." The four cases were settled in August, September and November with no findings or admissions of discrimination.</p> <p><strong>$6,000 To Settle Charge of Discrimination Against Mentally Retarded Sisters</strong></p> <p>Mary Ann Horn filed the Ohio case after she sought to rent an apartment for herself and her two mentally retarded sisters. They filed a charge of discrimination against Balwir Cheema, owner of an apartment complex on Dwight Road in Springfield.</p> <p>The landlord agreed to pay complainants $4,500 and HUD $1,500 to settle the case.</p> <p><i>[HUD ex rel. Horn v. Cheema, HUDALJ OS-90-1439-1]<br />Filed with HUD 9-10-90<br />HUD Charge Issued 5-19-92<br />Order 11-6-92</i></p> <p><strong>Brooklyn Handicapped Case Settled for $9,500</strong></p> <p>Freddie Peterkin alleged discrimination in the denial of a rental on the basis of his handicap by the Quincy Street Apartments in Brooklyn. The HUD Secretary's charge also alleged a violation of the Act by the rental agent. The agent was charged with "inquiring as to whether complainant had a handicap and the nature and severity of complainant's handicap." The Secretary charged that the agent violated the Act "by imposing different terms or conditions (such as requesting medical records) for the rental of a dwelling upon complainant because of his handicap."</p> <p>Quincy Street Associates owned the low income apartment building. Managing agent was the Pratt Area Community Council.</p> <p><i>[HUD ex rel. Makin v. Beveridge, HUDALJ 02-90-0174-1]<br />Filed with HUD 3-6-90<br />HUD Charge Issued 2-21-92<br />Order 8-17-92</i></p> <p><strong>San Jose Mobile Home Park Pays $6,000 for Refusal to Rent Space Because Wife is Pregnant</strong></p> <p>Aaron K. Gilbert charged Silver Creek Mobile Home Estates II of San Jose, with family status discrimination. Mr. Gilbert intended to occupy his leased space with his pregnant wife and his aunt.</p> <p>The HUD Secretary charged that the mobile home park refused to continue to rent space to Mr. Gilbert because he and his wife were going to have a child.</p> <p>In the settlement Silver Creek acknowledged that it is an all-age park and may not hold itself out as "housing for older persons." It agreed to pay Mr. Gilbert $5,000 and HUD $1,000.</p> <p>[HUD ex rel. Gilbert v. Silver Creek, HUDALJ 09-90-1452-1]<br />Filed with HUD 3-7-90<br />HUD Charge Issued 3-26-92<br />Order 11-9-91</p> <p><strong>Illinois Chateau Village Agrees to Two Persons Per Bedroom</strong></p> <p>Antoinette R. Balo tried to rent a two bedroom apartment at Chateau Village, a 210 unit complex in Carol Stream, Illinois. She was denied the rental because she had three minor children.</p> <p>Chateau Village admitted families with children, but adhered to a policy prohibiting a parent and a child from sharing a bedroom except where a child was born to the family after they became tenants.</p> <p>They said they adhered to this policy because the project's Housing Assistance Payments contract with HUD required that they "assign bedroom size in accordance with HUD's administrative requirements." They relied on tie HUD Handbook 4350.3 Sec 2-9b which they said provides that children should not share a bedroom with a parent.</p> <p>In the settlement agreement Chateau Village agreed they would not adopt an occupancy policy more restrictive than two persons per bedroom.</p> <p>The A &amp; R Katz Management firm agreed to pay complainant Balo $2,000.</p> <p><i>[HUD ex rel. Balo v. Zak Management; HUDALJ 05-90-0063-1]<br />Filed with HUD 10-17-89<br />HUD Charge Issued 3-10-92<br />Order 9-25-92</i></p> <p><strong>Correction: Samuel A. Chaitovitz Becomes Sixth HUD Administrative Law Judge</strong></p> <p>The November Advocate reported an incorrect firs name for HUD's sixth Administrative Law Judge, Samuel A. Chaitovitz. We regret this error.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18513 at https://fairhousing.comNew York Housing Testing Lawsuit Settles for $40,000https://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/new-york-housing-testing-lawsuit-settles-40000
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The N Y Open Housing Center and 10 Black and Latin tester/plaintiffs, have settled an apartment testing case for $40,000. The suit, filed in April 1991 against Richard Parkoff and the Parkoff Organization based in Great Neck, New York, was resolved in October when Judge Mary J. Lowe approved a consent agreement reached by the parties.</p> <p>For three years every third available apartment in eight buildings in the Pelham Parkway area of the Bronx and Dyckman/Inwood area of Manhattan will be set aside and listed with the Open Housing Center for a 7day priority period. During this time qualified people of color in the Center's housing registry will be offered the opportunity to rent the available units. Monitoring funds to carry out this settlement are to be paid to the Open Housing Center.</p> <p>A separate agreement reached between the Open Housing Center and Parkoff requires the Parkoff Organization and its agents for three buildings in Forest Hills Queens to inform the Open Housing Center in writing of all available apartments each month, as well as information about any waiting lists for these buildings. While no set asides were secured, Open Housing Center clients will know about the openings and be able to compete on a nondiscriminatory basis for these rentals.</p> <p>If evidence of discrimination is uncovered, a class action law suit will be brought by the Center. The testers, and set-aside apartments are sought as a remedy to end the practice, as well as funds to monitor any agreement reached.</p> <p>The Center has successfully settled ten lawsuits covering housing in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, opening the doors to hundreds of apartments in buildings and/or complexes that previously discriminated in rental practices.</p> <p>The law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson provided pro bono legal services for the plaintiffs.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18512 at https://fairhousing.comBroward County Florida HRC Orders Payment of $29,000 for Age Discrimination in Housinghttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/broward-county-florida-hrc-orders-payment-29000-age-discrimination
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The Broward County, Florida, Human Relations Board has applied its local ordinance prohibiting age discrimination to a housing discrimination case. It ordered a condo association to pay $14,000 in damages and $15,000 in attorney fees.</p> <p>Their ordinance includes an exemption for housing for older persons similar to the federal Fair Housing Act. The damages went to a real estate agent who lost a commission on the sale, to a prospective tenant who was under age 55, and to the unit owners who were willing to sell to the under 55 year old buyer but were prevented from selling.</p> <p>The three different complainants filed against the Las Vistas in Inverrary Condominium Association. All three cases were consolidated because they had a common issue of whether the condo association qualified under the "housing for older persons" exemption.</p> <p>The Human Rights Board concluded that the Condo satisfied only one prong of the three prong test for the exemption. They had "at least 80 percent of the units occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit." But they failed the requirement for "significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons." And they did not "demonstrate an intent to provide housing for persons 55 years of age or older."</p> <p>The Board said there had been "no significant changes in facilities, services, or activities" at Las Vistas since enactment of the 55-and-over law. They found that Las Vistas offered a variety of activities but "most of them appear to be normal social activities that adults of all ages would enjoy."</p> <p>The Human Rights panel concluded that the condo association did not qualify under the "housing for older persons" exemption of the County Human Rights Act and "by rejecting Meilich and the prospective buyer because of their ages, violated the age discrimination prohibition of the Act."</p> <p>They found that complainant Meilich, as a result of being rejected as a tenant, suffered damages of $3,745. The Board ordered payment of $9,326 to Meilich's attorney and $5,655 to the attorney for Wersted and Sechrest.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18511 at https://fairhousing.com$850,000 and $150,000 Awarded In Two D C Area Ad Discrimination Caseshttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/850000-and-150000-awarded-two-d-c-area-ad-discrimination-cases
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>A Black Georgetown University law professor and two fair housing advocacy groups won separate awards of $850,000 and $150,000 from real estate firms they charged had violated fair housing laws with newspaper advertisements which had used only white models.</p> <p>Law professor, Girardeau A. Spann, the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, and the Metropolitan Planning and Housing Association, had filed more than 40 complaints against D.C. area developers and advertising firms. Most had been settled for nominal amounts before the two settlements this Spring.</p> <p>A federal jury ordered an Arlington real estate developer to pay $850,000 in damages to the African American professor and the two housing groups.</p> <p>The case decided in U.S. District Court in Washington, involved ads that ran between 1981 and 1986 in The Washington Post and several other local publications for the sale of condominiums at Colonial Village, a garden-apartment community located in Arlington. In that period, newspaper advertisements for the 640 apartments in Colonial Village in Arlington VA, showed 251 white models, but no African American models.</p> <p>It is the largest award ever in a case of racially discriminatory real estate advertising, according to Niki Kuckes, an attorney for the three plaintiffs. She said that Colonial Village spent about $150,000 a year on advertising. This is relevant to how much it would cost to remedy the effects of the advertising.</p> <p><strong>Regular Reader of Ads Had Standing</strong></p> <p>Just before the trial, Federal District Judge Harold H. Greene ruled that the law professor had standing to sue even if he never considered living in Arlington and never visited Colonial Village or sought to buy a home there. Judge Greene said, "There is no requirement under the law that [Spann] actually apply to a racially prejudiced realtor." He said under the Fair Housing Act, "the requirements of standing are not nearly so rigorous." Spann was a bona fine home seeker who regularly read the Washington Post real estate section and saw the Colonial Village ads.</p> <p>Judge Greene also held that the intent of the creator of an ad was not at issue as he rejected defendant's motion for summary judgment. He said, "Although intent may be relevant in determining what message is conveyed...the issue centers on the objective message of the ad as construed by an ordinary reader."</p> <p>The legal battle began when Spann started looking for a house or condo to buy and noticed real estate ads showing only white models. "It made me angry and it still makes me angry to this day," Spann said. He had discussed the ads with an attorney friend of his who told him, "Now wait a minute, this is racial steering. It has to be illegal. Why don't we sue them for it?"</p> <p>Officials for the two fair housing groups testified that the Colonial Village ads harmed their mission or goals and caused them to divert resources to investigate and counteract the discriminatory effects of the ads.</p> <p>As part of the same effort, in August 1986 the Spann group reached an agreement with The Post under which the newspaper agreed to require that 25 percent of the models shown in real estate ads be black, to roughly approximate the percentage of blacks in the Washington area.</p> <p>The jury yesterday awarded $325,000 to each of the fair housing organizations, and $200,000 to Spann, who had testified that he would give the money to the two groups. Spann, a District resident, said he never did buy a house or condominium.</p> <p>Mack Benton, vice president of Colonial Village Inc., a subsidiary of Mobil Land Development Corp., said, "It's our feeling that the amount of damages awarded by the jury is absurd." He said Colonial Village immediately began using black models in its ads after the suit was filed in 1986.</p> <p><strong>Gerstin Advertising Agency Settles for $150,000</strong></p> <p>Marvin J. Gerstin and his firm, Marvin Gerstin Associates, Inc., settled a separate case for $150,000. They were accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by including only white models in ads they prepared for several housing projects in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington D.C.</p> <p>They also agreed to include significant percentages of Blacks as human models in advertising they prepare in the future. They agreed to extensive record keeping and reporting to the plaintiffs, while denying any discrimination.</p> <p>[Spann v. Colonial Village, (D.D.C. 5-5-92)] and [Spann v. Gerstin, (D.D.C. 3-30-92)]</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18510 at https://fairhousing.comFourth Circuit Holds Falls Church Owner Liable For Sex Discrimination by Property Managerhttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/fourth-circuit-holds-falls-church-owner-liable-sex-discrimination
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in October, upheld a $5,000 damage award for sex discrimination and reversed and remanded the case to hold the owner liable for the acts of the property manager.</p> <p>The jury had returned a verdict against the professional realtor, who was ordered to pay the damages, but had cleared the owner of all charges and liabilities. The complainant's appeal was upheld by the Circuit Court which said the owner could not so easily "dispose of his duty to prevent sexual discrimination in renting ...property which he owned."</p> <p>The complainant, Darlene Walker, is a single mother with one son. She is an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms Walker contacted Town and Country properties about rental units in the Falls Church, Virginia area. She visited a property owned by Frank B. Whitesell and managed by Constance A. Crigler.</p> <p>The listing described the property as "a nice 2BR (two bedroom)" apartment "ideal for two men." The listing said the apartment had "3 guys" as tenants.</p> <p><strong>In Response to Housing Discrimination Suits</strong></p> <p>In January 1989 the owner became aware of housing discrimination suits against landlords. On the advice of his attorney he sent his property manager the following instruction:</p> <p>"No one who meets all other qualifications for tenancy on one of my properties is to be denied the right to rent such properties solely because of discrimination on the basis of race, creed or physical impairment." While gender was not included, the property manager insisted the letter meant that all federal anti-discrimination provisions should be met.</p> <p>Ms. Walker was helped by John Moore of Town and Country Properties in her effort to get an apartment. She filled out an application for an apartment owned by Whitesell at 124 Falls Avenue.</p> <p>Moore testified that Crigler said in no uncertain terms that she would not rent to a woman. She expressed her policy of not renting to a woman in any circumstances.</p> <p>Complainant called Crigler after Moore relayed his conversation with the property manager. Complainant said Crigler told her she would not rent to a single woman. She said she had experienced problems with the boyfriend of a single woman in the past. Complainant asked Crigler if she was speaking for the owner, and she said she was.</p> <p>Between August 10, and October 19, 1989, the complainant filed several administrative, local and state discrimination suits against Town and Country officials, Crigler, and Whitesell.</p> <p>The jury found for the complainant but fully exonerated Whitesell of any responsibility for the discriminatory acts of his employee.</p> <p>Following the trial, the complainant filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. She also asked for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, asking the court to enter judgment against Whitesell, arguing that Crigler, as a matter of law, was an agent of Whitesell who acted within the scope of her authority. The District Court denied all motions. Soon thereafter Crigler filed a bankruptcy petition and the court discharged Crigler's $5,000 debt.</p> <p>The Fourth Circuit Court held that the District Court's conclusion that Whitesell was not liable for damages, was based on an erroneous theory of law and that reversal was required.</p> <p><strong>Duty of Owner Not to Discriminate is Non-delegable</strong></p> <p>The Circuit Court distinguished housing cases from other situations where a principal might be shielded from liability for the acts of his agent. The Court said, "Whitesell could not insulate himself from liability for sex discrimination in regard to living premises owned by him and managed for his benefit merely by relinquishing the responsibility for preventing such discrimination to another party. Here we adopt the general rule applied by other federal courts that the duty of a property owner not to discriminate in the leasing or sale of that property is non-delegable."</p> <p><em>[Walker v. Crigler, 4th Cir No. 91-1542, 10-5-92.]</em></p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18509 at https://fairhousing.comNAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Settles California Housing Suit for $300,000https://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/naacp-legal-defense-and-educational-fund-settles-california-housing-suit
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., has settled of a California housing discrimination lawsuit for $300,000. The payment to the plaintiffs is believed to be one of the five largest awards ever paid to victims of racial discrimination in the rental of housing.</p> <p>The owner of a 40-unit apartment complex in the San Fernando Valley is paying $300,000 to two victims of racial discrimination. The owner has agreed to be bound by a court order requiring changes to, and monitoring of, the rental policies of all units owned by the landlord.</p> <p>The names of the parties have been withheld under terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties.</p> <p>The victims, an African American man and woman, suffered discrimination in two separate incidents in 1988 and 1989. In March of 1989, the landlord raised the rent on the unit the male plaintiff occupied while no other tenants experienced rent increases.</p> <p>The rental manager confessed that the landlord had ordered the rent increase to keep "pressure" on the man in an effort to force him out of the building. According to the manager's deposition, the landlord stated to her that he never would have rented the unit to the plaintiff had he known that he was "colored." The manager said the landlord had instructed her to deny the rental application of any African American.</p> <p>The woman, a 23 year-old who recently moved to the Los Angeles area from Minnesota, was discriminatorily denied a unit at the same apartment complex in 1988. When she tried to move into an apartment in the complex that was occupied by a friend, the rental manager had told her she would have to fill out an application.</p> <p>Despite having listed on her application that she was working for a temporary agency that specialized in the health care field, that she had over $2,000 in her Minneapolis bank account, and that she had been a paying tenant of an identified landlord, the woman's application was denied.</p> <p>The rental manager told her that her application was denied because 1) she had not lived in Los Angeles for eight months, 2) she did not have sufficient "California credit," and 3) she did not own a car. These criteria had not been applied to white applicants in the complex, and the manager admitted to a tenant in the building that she had denied the woman's application because of her race.</p> <p>Under the consent decree, the landlord must make efforts to rent at least 10 percent of his units to African Americans. "The settlement of this lawsuit illustrates a significant increase in damage awards to victims of racial discrimination in housing," stated Kevin Reed, Western Regional Counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18508 at https://fairhousing.comTexas Rights Director Files Complaint Against KKKhttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/texas-rights-director-files-complaint-against-kkk
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">Executive Director Bill Hale, of the Texas Commission on Human Rights, has initiated a complaint of discrimination against the Ku Klux Klan under Article IX of the Texas Fair Housing Act. <p>The complaint was filed against the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the white Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, as well as Michael Lowe and Charles W. Lee, acting in their official capacity as Grand Dragons. </p> <p>The complaint, filed November 16, alleges that the Klan leaders tried to stop Black families from moving into an Orange County Housing Authority complex in Vidor, Texas. </p> <p>Director Hale said the Klan "has crossed the line" between freedom of speech and threats of intimidation in attempts to protest the integration of an all-white apartment complex in Vidor. </p> <p>"Any individual has constitutional guarantees," Hale said. "I appreciate rights to free speech and anyone can protest, but the Klan has crossed the line. I do not intent to tamper with freedom of speech, but I also do not intend for the KKK to do what the law prohibits." </p> <p>Both of the Klan groups have conducted public and private rallies to protest integration in Vidor and to recruit members. Hale did not discuss specific contentions against the Klan. </p> <p>Vidor Mayor, Ruth Woods, and housing complex residents have said the Klan has threatened them with physical harm. "I have been through a lot of anguish over this," Woods said. "Only through law enforcement agents, have I found out about the threats." </p> <p>Hale said he had backing for the complaint against the Klan from Governor Ann Richards, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, and a number of state legislators and federal officials. He said his office has subpoena and injunction powers, and he might ask other federal agencies to help in the investigation. </p> <p><strong>Texas Commission Implementing Federal Court Order </strong></p> <p>The Texas Commission on Human Rights is directly involved in implementing a federal court order in Young v Kemp to desegregate 70 public housing authorities in 36 East Texas counties. Part of that plan involves moving Blacks into all-white apartment complexes in Vidor. The Texas Commission also enforces its own strong fair housing law which is based on the 1988 federal Fair Housing Act. That law and the Texas agency were the first to be deemed equivalent to the new stronger provisions in the 1988 Federal Act. </p> <p><strong>Education For Desegregation Under Young v. Kemp</strong></p> <p>The Texas Commission on Human Rights was approved September 30, to receive $306,000 in education and outreach funds under HUD's Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The Commission will conduct an extensive program of workshops and seminars to help the victims of housing discrimination in East Texas. They will train residents and potential residents of public housing and Section 8 housing. </p> <p>Attorneys and public officials will learn about their responsibility under the court decision. Private housing providers will be trained to participate in Section 8 housing. The Texas Commission will also train trainers for testers in a broad effort to discover where discrimination continues. </p><ptexas p="" susy.="" rachel="" and="" c.="" d.="" washington="" cleveland="" of="" friedman="" avery="" attorney="" housing="" fair="" known="" nationally="" assistance="" the="" have="" also="" will="" they="" program.="" this="" implement="" help="" to="" branches="" texas="" east="" dozen="" a="" with="" naacp="" hooks="" ben="" contracted="" officials="" rights="" human=""> <p>The court order required HUD to use FHIP money to encourage desegregation in public housing in the 36 East Texas counties. That order came in September 1990. The court had found liability in 1985. An interim injunction was issued in March 1988. No agency applied under HUD's first Notice of Fund Availability for fiscal 1991. The Texas Commission applied under the second NOFA for Fiscal 1992. </p> <p>Klan activities in East Texas have been extensively reported in Texas newspapers. An October Phil Donahue show featured interviews and video tapes from Vidor. </p></ptexas></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18507 at https://fairhousing.comDecember 1992 Indexhttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/december-1992-index
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18507">Texas rights director files complaint against KKK</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18508">NAACP LDF settles California rental case for $300,000</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18509">Fourth Circuit holds owner liable for discrimination by manager</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18510">$1 million awarded in two D.C. area ad bias cases</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18511">Broward County, Fla., HRC orders $29,000 paid by condo</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18512">N.Y. Open Housing Center settles apartment case for $40,000</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18513">ALJ Cregar settles two handicap and two family cases for $23,500</a></li></ul> <ul> <li><a class="" href="/node/18514">Judge Streb orders $10,000 paid on two denials of rentals</a></li></ul></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18506 at https://fairhousing.comFair Housing Resourceshttps://fairhousing.com/news-archive/advocate/1992/fair-housing-resources
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-rss"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The Fair Housing Information Clearinghouse is distributing a flyer describing three new resources to help people stay on top of fair housing issues.</p> <p>1. They provide a free brochure to help discrimination victims choose between their options under the Fair Housing Act election process.</p> <p>2. They offer an <em>Americans with Disabilities Handbook</em> for $10.</p> <p>3. They offer <em>Twelve Years of Law Review Commentary on the Fair Housing Law - A Bibliography</em> for $4.</p> <p>To receive the FHIC flyer and further information about their publications and services write:</p> <p>FHIC<br />P.O. BOX 6091<br />ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 <br />or call 1800-343-3442 or TTY/TTD 1-800-877-8339</p> <p>Chicago's <em>John Marshall Law Review</em> has published the proceedings of the May 1,1992, National Fair Housing Conference: "Maximizing Damages in a Fair Housing Case." Among papers included is Judge Alan Heifetz's presentation on the awarding of damages from an administrative law judge's perspective. A limited number of copies are available at $10.00. They may be ordered from:</p> <p>John Marshall Law School<br />315 South Plymouth Court<br />Chicago, Illinois 60604<br />312-427-2737</p></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0000tmccartney18505 at https://fairhousing.com